Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

• From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
• Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:00:10 -0600
• To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
• CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>, hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <4CFECA8A.5070405@rowe-clan.net>

On 12/7/2010 5:47 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> If there are other proposals that would work better and serve the same use cases, that
> would be useful input to the conversation. "Don't try to share a port with a Web server"
> is not a sufficiently fleshed out proposal to move the conversation forward, and does
> break some use cases that were identified as desirable. If someone cares to present a more
> concrete proposal, we'd be in a position to evaluate the tradeoffs.

Of course, no-one has said that.  Both CONNECT and connection-upgrade are well defined
semantics for tunneling that-which-is-not-HTTP, or that-which-extends-HTTP.  As long
as the conversation retains the basic premises that HTTP is not async/bidi, message
bodies can and will be buffered, etc, then all RFC-conformant solutions should stay
on the table.

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 00:01:18 UTC